AI and political values

By Muhammad Ayaan —

Ever since the start of Civilization, the greatest dream of mankind has neither been money nor power as a whole. It has always been perfection. Think about it: the one whose art is most precise and closest to perfection always gets a higher price for their art. The one nation that is the closest to perfection is the most dominating overall. Over time, humanity realized that perfection is not possible. It is unachievable. But what if we did?

Artificial intelligence as of now is heading in such a direction. We Humans think if we can’t achieve perfection, then our creations can. All of this seems like a fantasy, but what if AI actually succeeds? If it does, will perfection still be achievable? Would it craft a bulletproof system where there are no objections towards the system itself? What if—and here’s what will happen—if AI reaches full optimization?

Let’s suppose all of us wake up tomorrow and hear that the super intelligent AI has been created. Its Algorithm seems like an unbreakable fortress, something that cannot be shaken. But what if it is not as bulletproof as it sounds? Let’s suppose the AI can accurately use its Algorithm to predict every single social and economic policy and apply these policies in such a way that maximizes collective welfare. In this kind of system, everything may seem perfect, but it depends on the values you support. For example: capitalists have different views, and for socialism you have different views.

What I am trying to imply is that different people have different views, opinions, and ideas. The Algorithm may have optimal optimization, but it optimizes what it is given as a source. This is where modern ideologies draw their respective borders. Some will favor stability, some will favor power centralization, and some will favor liberty. While choosing different choices, the optimization will depend on the information it is given to process. In such a scenario, the situation about perfection becomes polarized between many blocs.

This polarity now begs the question: which bloc should be the framework used for optimization? Which value is most important? Which is most needed?
Many people have different views on this matter, but I present a solution on the matter. I present Concordianism.

Now, this Concordianism is not what you may see on your web browsers. This is a new and independently created framework I created with Dynamic Equilibrium as its basis. Dynamic Equilibrium between what, you may ask? The very problem that separates us all into the above-mentioned separate blocs. Concordianism suggests that these blocs are incomplete. I repeat: not wrong, incomplete.

Concordianism suggests that instead of focusing on maintaining and optimizing one political value, we should work on every single value in the form of Dynamic Equilibrium. This makes sure no value dominates one another. In this case, we have a new scenario where all blocs are united through Concordianism, through Dynamic Equilibrium. I repeat: Dynamic Equilibrium is not static. It means this is no equal representation or permanent fix of values numerically; the relation is dynamic.

This means that representation of value changes depending upon the needs. Now, some may ask: how is this relevant to this scenario? You see, previously, the Algorithm succeeded in promoting the values that the framework gives them. Since Concordianism doesn't support a single value over others and instead insists on Dynamic Equilibrium between them all, this greatly affects the success. Since the framework now doesn't only focus on one value but keeps the relationship dynamic whilst making sure no value completely dominates another. For example, compared against a liberal framework which has the same Algorithm, the Concordian framework wins overall, while the liberal framework only wins liberty while remaining far behind in other metrics. Now, don't get me wrong; I am not saying my framework is perfect and won't have any problems, but it's arguably much better than the liberal framework in such a scenario because, while the liberal framework only prioritizes freedom, Concordianism arguably balances stability, accountability, and other values in a dynamic way instead of just focusing on one value.

Now, the broader question is: how does Concordianism even achieve this? How does it balance these opposing values? Indeed, a valid question. Concordianism achieves this through a process that doesn't include numerical values as a basis. Instead, it uses human-led decision-making, guided by data obtained by the Algorithm. In such a scenario, the Algorithm is completely neutral and has the ability to identify the problems but cannot suggest any solutions. The whole decision-making is up to Humans.

Now, some people may object that if the Algorithm is perfect, why not allow it to suggest and implement solutions? The main problem is that the Algorithm doesn't work without numerical values, while, as I insisted earlier, the Dynamic Equilibrium isn't numerical or based on equality. Therefore, the Algorithm and the equilibrium are not compatible, which suggests that the Algorithm is better off analysing the data and acting as a reporter rather than acting as a reformer.

Now, I am about to address an issue that is much neglected in the modern world: lack of institutional memory. Why is it important, you may ask? Well, you see, sometimes every problem we encounter is not a new one; sometimes history repeats itself, and a scenario occurs more than once. In such a scene of chaos, the AI cannot only act as a reporter but also as a historian, detecting it as an issue that was faced before in the past. This enables us to take a look at the past and determine how we solved it back then, which helps us conserve our energy in solutions instead of starting from the start. Furthermore, this allows us to preserve our national history, as well as traditions and evolution of the state. It acts as the historical record, ensuring none of our previous work, knowledge, and doctrines are lost to the unending flow of time.

Now, most people will once again object: "How will you protect the memory from being corrupted by a government for their own gain?" The institutional memory isn't stored by the government as a simple archive merely for looking at the past. It is mandatory, and the memory is protected by the Constitution, and governments are not allowed to corrupt the memory for their own gain because they cannot just alter reality. Everyone has access to the institutional memory; therefore, even if something gets altered, it will be quickly identified by people, and the government shall face treason.

The Algorithm, in such a case, can also be quite helpful, as it could compare the current situations with what happened in the past and accurately predict crises by identifying the core phases in historical records that led to a crisis earlier. This ability allows us to tackle disasters way before they even show up, possibly allowing us to get out of the problems with minimal damage.
Another objection by most people will probably be: "Great, you found out problems and are ready to tackle them; threats have been detected, but how will you tackle them and draft a solution?"

Here we introduce another emergency safeguard you might have never expected: the inbuilt Concordianism Amendments Convention. This Convention takes the threats the Algorithm detected and translates them into useful solutions through debates and challenging the arguments of each other to find a productive solution. They ensure that the patterns detected by AI allow us to tackle the problems head on before they show themselves publicly. The reason I call this Convention inbuilt and different from other existing ones is because of one reason: it is mandatory and happens every 10 to 15 years, depending on which time the country chooses out of the two. This suggests that the Amendments Convention is not dependent on any leader or figure and is mandatory; therefore, it helps the state adapt without decaying due to rigidity. Another point to note is that amendments are not necessary if no threats are detected in real time, but review is still mandatory to just ensure the status of the economy and state affairs.

Now, people may ask: who runs the Convention? Is it owned by the government or people? Well, you're in for a shock, because none of them owns the Convention completely. The members of the Convention include representatives from Parliament, citizens, and experts, along with the President and Prime Minister. It may include the Founder of Concordianism as a pure advisor who checks if the solutions are Concordian and not against the Concordian framework. The role of the Founder may evolve towards an independent Concordianism council in the future.

The Founder has no authority and purely exists as an advisor who ensures that the proposed solutions are not against the core principles of Concordianism.
Next, people may ask: how will the people in the Convention draft solutions? What is the whole process? Over the given time for a Convention, the Algorithm detects a threat. Now, the time for the Convention happens, and the Algorithm looks back at the historical basis of disasters and crises, etc. The problem has been detected. Now, members draft solutions and debate them. They attack the arguments instead of attacking the individuals. They also check the effectiveness of each proposed solution and finally negotiate for a productive solution. After that, the solution with the highest consensus is adopted and brought into effect.

Now, what if a disaster struck when the Convention was more than five years away? Well, don't worry; I have a solution. The emergency protocol for the Amendments Convention allows us to call it early to avoid a disaster in sight. The catch? Eighty percent of all government officials and citizens must agree on calling the Amendments Convention early. This makes sure that neither a populist short-term wave nor a government self-made amendment happens.

Next up I am going to answer the final question. How did I speculate and establish the fact that chasing one single value is just like knowingly jumping in a deep abyss?

Well here is the historical basis of my claim which proves I am not just speculating but have concrete evidence of my claims through historical basis.

This historical basis is written in the history of Pakistan itself. Foreign investment was at an all-time high, and the country was using capitalism to fuel its economy. On paper, it seemed the country was getting richer and richer. Citizens were becoming more wealthy, but the problem lay in the economic foundation itself. This wealth was not distributed; instead, it was highly concentrated in a very small circle. This fueled wealth inequality and allowed financially strong monopolies to take over the economy of the nation. The wealth was coming to the nation but was not moving through the complete national circuit; it stopped at the highly concentrated, wealth-accumulating collecting banks, which would be one of the core reasons for Bhutto and his nationalization policies. In fact, the situation was so bad that when General Ayyub resigned, it was stated that about 66% and 88% of all industrial assets and banking sector were respectively controlled by just 22 families, as written by economist Dr. Mahbub-ul-Haq.

General Ayyub Khan left behind a highly concentrated wealth accumulation in a small circle. His successor, General Yahya Khan, was not given much time to try to fix anything, and he was then succeeded by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto inherited such an economy which was concentrated in very few hands. So he chose the direct opposite of capitalism that Ayyub Khan had implemented. He went for socialism. He thought that if he could nationalize wealth, then he could distribute it evenly and get rid of wealth inequality. The problem is he went too far in his nationalization process. He replaced one extreme with another. The private economic monopolies became state-owned monopolies. Instead of offering positions on merit, positions were given due to political interference. Innovation collapsed, which resulted in stagnation. And the wealth equality? It started to get better in the early years, but due to corruption and power centralisation, it failed, and inequality started to rise again. Bhutto failed in the very promise he made to the public.

One ancient relic of the Bhutto era still exists today: forgotten, lost, and unused. The PECO factory. One of the best engineering factories in Pakistan, which was a national symbol of progress and a source of engineering pride. The factory was doing great until the inevitable nationalization caught up with it. The factory was brought under full state control. Merit-based jobs were replaced with political interference. The innovators were replaced by incapable workers. The factory was running into losses and had to take many bailouts from the government. Centralised control prevented a corporate monopoly but failed to stop corruption and state-owned monopoly. Today, the factory stands irrelevant, forgotten—simply a lost reminder that replacing one extreme with another doesn't change anything.
All of this trip down the history of Pakistan shows us that no matter what happens, if we give the Algorithm only one single value to prioritise, we will end up in the same destruction, and our economy will become the same past relic as the PECO factory. That is why I believe that if we give any existing framework to the Algorithm, and instead of making it a strict reporter and historian, we make it a solution maker and implementer, we risk the same past. This is why I prefer Concordianism, and this is the same reason I created it: to avoid the same loops of chaos that the existing incomplete systems take us back into.

From the old engineering factory to wealth accumulation in a small circle, everything is a warning to us about the future. It is the concrete proof that pursuing a single value—whether it is private wealth or state control—always leads to the same abyss of destruction, which reduces all development and innovation to the ground. If we give an Algorithm only one value to optimise, we are repeating the same mistakes many people in the past made. This is not a path to a better future, but rather a risky and dangerous leap towards a giant abyss that will cost all of us our whole economy, industry, power, and national pride. Concordianism does not aim to be perfect, because it does not resemble a utopia; it aims to protect and provide the environment and constitutional immune system to us that ensures we never forget the cost of disrupted equilibrium.

At the end, I would like to clarify and state a major setback of my own framework. The setback is the fact that the framework is still evolving and has not been completed. I deeply understand that questions, such as why Dynamic Equilibrium is not numerical, are questions that I do not have a complete answer to yet. However, as the framework evolves with time, I can construct a more concrete answer to such questions in the future. The questions do not remain unidentified; they are being considered and will be answered soon enough in a more concrete way than before.

I will not call this a major setback, because I am constructing the answer as of now, when everyone might be reading this essay, and hopefully I might find a more concrete answer sooner than expected. All the developed mechanisms and philosophy were not for nothing. This project is not merely for an essay submission; it is for a greater purpose, and it will keep evolving in the future. I see this setback as a strength, because I have answers, but I am simply trying to make them more concrete before sharing them.